Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (533820)	12/2/2009 9:20:08 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1582327

If we had followed it we would have few troops right now in the Middle East, 1000's of soldiers still alive and 10's of thousands physically and mentally healthy, public coffers in much better shape, and the world would be appreciably a better place. We would have had to reinstitute the draft I suspect. You seem to be under the impression the level of violence is lower when you have a lot of troops. It doesn't work that way. More troops, more deaths. It may (or may not) enable you to win the war more quickly. What Obama is doing right now is certainly in no way compliant with the Powell Doctrine requiring "overwhelming force". I believe Bush would have more troops in Afg. now than Obama does.

To: Road Walker who wrote (533820)	12/2/2009 12:47:55 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1582327

What's your take on Afghanistan following the Obama speech? I still wish we'd get out, but I can't claim he didn't say he was going to do something like this during the campaign. I hoped it was just campaign talk. I thought it was a fairly good speech. He wants to give the Afghans the honest shot Bush never gave them - it's not like they don't KNOW what the Taliban are like. I think we need a permanent base in Aghanistan to be able to secure the nukes in N. Pakistan if needed, and we may need it for a long time. We could have done that by just being warlord of Kabul. Obama is making several gutsy plays simultaneously. By 2012, he needs to be showing progress on jobs, the economy and Afghanistan, as well as handling anything that arises, or he's history.

To: Road Walker who wrote (533820)	12/2/2009 1:02:32 PM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1582327

Everything to do with the Powell Doctrine. If we had followed it we would have few troops right now in the Middle East, 1000's of soldiers still alive and 10's of thousands physically and mentally healthy, public coffers in much better shape, and the world would be appreciably a better place. They followed the exact opposite of the Powell doctrine in both places...possibly for different reasons. Iraq, the wrong war, was "Rumsfelded" for nearly 5 years, and Afghanistan became orphaned for 7, leaving there an even worst mess for Obama to untangle...while he is trying to also fix the economic disaster they left behind...and cheney has the balls to flap his gums on a daily basis...it's enough to drive a peace loving human to waterboard the sonofabitch. Al

To: Road Walker who wrote (533820)	12/2/2009 3:01:30 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1582327

Agent Bauer, > Everything to do with the Powell Doctrine. OK, Mr. Bauer, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the Powell Doctrine: en.wikipedia.org 1) Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2) Do we have a clear attainable objective? 3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? 5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7) Is the action supported by the American people? 8) Do we have genuine broad international support? Can you answer all of these questions affirmatively? If not, why do you pretend that Obama gives a damn about the so-called Powell Doctrine? Tenchusatsu